add_comment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals one key behavior (anchoring to first occurrence) but omits others such as mutability, error handling (if anchor not found), and whether comments are inline or separate. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant words. The core action and unique behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, making it immediately clear. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks completeness about return values, error scenarios, and prerequisites. A sentence about what the tool returns or what happens if anchor_text lacks would make it more complete. As is, it is minimally viable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to explain parameters. It adds minimal extra context about 'anchoring' which relates to anchor_text, but the schema already describes anchor_text as 'Text to attach the comment to'. Thus, the description provides no significant added meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Add a comment') and the specific target ('to specific text in the document'), and includes a unique behavior ('anchored to the first occurrence of the anchor text'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_comments' and 'reply_to_comment', which may have different anchoring or scoping.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_comments' (plural) or 'reply_to_comment'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., document must exist) or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.